Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com

Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Journal Founding: August 2, 2012

Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year

Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed

Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access

Fees: None (Free)

Volume Numbering: 13

Issue Numbering: 1

Section: A

Theme Type: Idea

Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”

Theme Part: 32

Formal Sub-Theme: Post-Conatus News Meander

Individual Publication Date: November 22, 2024

Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2025

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Word Count: 3,575

Image Credits: Photo by Damon Lam on Unsplash.

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885

Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*

Abstract

Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert is an educator, independent researcher, and writer specializing in philosophy and sociology of education. She holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge, with her research focusing on the role of knowledge in education and its redefinition in the late 20th century. She is co-editor of What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, Subjects and the Pursuit of Truth and regularly writes for academic and public audiences on issues like liberal education, aesthetics, and social realist epistemology. Dr. Sehgal Cuthbert also directs “Don’t Divide Us,” a campaign against divisive educational policies. Cuthbert critiques contemporary ideological shifts in education that focus on vulnerability and trauma, leading to changes in curriculum prioritization based on race and gender. She argues that such changes undermine universal principles, evidenced by a Cambridge lecturer’s  suggestion that there were  multiple “universalisms.” Cuthbert believes this approach confuses knowledge systems and diverges from empirical philosophy. She also recounts her own experience of being disinvited from a conference due to her universalist views on race. Despite opposition, she continues to advocate for a liberal, objective approach to education and anti-racism​.

Keywords: Cambridge education research, contemporary ideological shifts, divisive educational policies, liberal education advocacy, objective anti-racism stance, social realist epistemology, universal principles in education..

Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here for another round of post-Conatus News. So, what’s new? You got your Ph.D. What else? What was your thesis?

Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert: The thesis was on liberal education based on sociology and the philosophy of education. It made a liberal case for a knowledge-based classical education. Philosophically, it addressed questions of epistemology and core educational values, which were important then but have become even more significant as they entered public debate, especially with the social justice agenda impacting schools. Since then, I’ve been involved in work related to this. When I finished my PhD, I got involved in politics. I stood for the Brexit Party because I believed it was necessary to respect the democratic vote.

It felt like the right thing to do, though I have to admit it didn’t make me very popular in Cambridge, where I lived. I finished my PhD but remained active in academic circles, particularly Cambridge. I continued teaching intermittently until a few years ago. Still, most of my time has been devoted to running a campaign group called Don’t Divide Us. It was established in the summer of 2020 following the death of George Floyd. Our campaign promotes a common-sense approach to race that rejects the social justice and critical race theory perspectives on race and anti-racism.

It’s one thing to speculate on these topics in a university seminar. Still, it’s another when they are used as guiding principles in schools, especially primary schools, where it re-racializes culture in an unhealthy way. Don’t Divide Us was set up quite spontaneously after lockdown, as many parents and teachers began reaching out to us, mainly to me as the press and public-facing representative, expressing disbelief at what was happening in their children’s schools. They were shocked that their young children, sometimes as young as five or six years old, were being taught about white privilege. You’re familiar with this, particularly in America and possibly Canada.

Our work involves:

• Offering individual advice.
• Publishing reports.
• Briefing interested politicians and advisors.
• Engaging with the press when necessary. We’ve

produced two reports examining the growth of the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) sector, particularly in Britain’s public institutions and schools.

I also continue to write, crossing between academic and public-facing writing. Most of my work revolves around race, decolonization, reparations, and similar topics. I’m trying to dig deeper into these race-related issues, exploring sociologically what’s happening as society moves away from and even rejects fundamental social democratic norms that shaped Britain’s post-war development.

Jacobsen: How would you characterize the academic style at Cambridge, not the people themselves but, the content and style of teaching in higher learning?

Cuthbert: Our son recently completed both his undergraduate and master’s degrees at Cambridge as well.

I did my PhD there. I also did my other degrees at other institutions. The Oxbridge system, in principle, is sound. When done correctly, the idea of tutorials and lectures leaves little room for students to game the system. You can, for example, use AI to assist with an essay, but when you’re in a seminar room and being questioned by your lecturer or supervisor—if they’re any good—you’ll be thoroughly tested. That said, I can’t say, hand on heart, that Cambridge was consistently rigorous when I was there (I was awarded my PhD in 2017). 

There are signs that things are not as they should be. The rigour varies across departments. It’s not just about the curriculum but rather how a new ideology is shaping academic progress, the selection of professorships, lectures, and the academic work that’s encouraged versus that which is ignored. I saw some of this when I was there, and it still needs to be improved. The whole system has yet to deteriorate. Still, there are certainly worrying signs, and what’s more concerning is the lack of political will to address these issues, whether at universities or nursery schools.

Jacobsen: Now, if we’re talking about the Cambridge style of academic teaching and content delivery, where students are put under considerable pressure by their advisors and professors when done properly, what aspects of the ideology you’re referring to are eroding those standards or removing key pillars if I understand you correctly?

Cuthbert: It’s a combination of factors. Most notably, it’s when the criteria for selecting academic and administrative staff shift from focusing on core skills or essential knowledge to more secondary criteria, such as how well they can quantify their experience regarding equity outputs or how they can shape research proposals to meet equity requirements. These are now mandatory statements in funding applications, for instance. As a result, you get a narrowing of viewpoints that are legitimized. While some individuals may hold different views, the general culture won’t be conducive to giving those broader perspectives equal favour. Some viewpoints will be marginalized.

That’s the most insidious and corrosive issue. There are also other factors, such as mounting financial pressures on British universities. To cope, they’ve been admitting more international students since that brings in more money, but there needs to be more consideration of the impact. For example, I’ve spoken to lecturers who have told me that some foreign students won’t speak up in seminars, especially  Chinese students or students from some Middle Eastern countries. They’ll approach the lecturers individually to talk, but they remain silent in the classroom.

At first, the lecturer  thought it was a cultural difference and that, as they grew more confident, they might participate more. But that didn’t happen; it’s more like political fear. I can’t say how widespread it is, but it’s not unfamiliar to many lecturers. That’s one aspect of the issue.

Jacobsen: There are antipodes on this particular topic. On one hand, some say this type of fear doesn’t exist at all. On the other hand, some believe it’s a significant problem, practically shouting, “The sky is falling! What are we going to do?” For the sake of argument, to set the goalposts, where do you see yourself on this spectrum? I understand it’s a complex issue with multiple variables—so it’s spectra—but I’d like to know where you stand for the sake of this discussion.

Cuthbert: I lean away from complacency. I’m not a catastrophist, but ignoring the signs would be more catastrophic. This might not describe every university or every classroom. Still, when cultural and academic authorities largely share a similar worldview, even if they are a minority, they tend to be influential. They hold the levers that establish the main narrative and the primary ethical norms. As a result, a diversity of viewpoints has been squeezed out.

It’s now totally acceptable in Britain to casually assert that, of course, Britain is a racist country. No proof is required, and questioning this, if not outrightly labeled as racist, is considered odd. In a white-majority country, continuing to push this narrative will likely provoke a backlash. People will start framing their grievances similarly identically, which could lead to further social fragmentation. We’re not there yet, but the signs aren’t good. Unless we see leadership in our institutions and politics to acknowledge the problem, things will continue down a worrying path.

So, no, I’m not in the “everything’s gone to hell” camp. That said, when I talk to some young people — there are still good courses out there. Not all courses or new initiatives are rubbish. For instance, while I’ve written vehemently against decolonization as it’s currently framed, I’m certainly not against expanding and enriching the range of sources we study, particularly in the humanities and literature. There’s fantastic work being done in other countries, though much of it isn’t happening in Britain or America. For example, I’ve come across some interesting philosophical works from India, where scholars engage with thinkers that British academics used to study but no longer do.

Most sociology reading lists rarely go back further than Foucault. If Weber or Durkheim are included, it’s usually to criticize them for being sexist or racist. So, while curiosity and intellectual hunger are still present among young people in Britain, we’ll see further cynicism if they are not met. I don’t think they’ll unquestioningly adopt “woke” ideology or unthinkingly drink the Kool-Aid. Still, but  there’s a risk of deeper disillusionment.

What happens is that one way of dealing with it is to switch off—to become disinterested in anything other than your narrow focus of “I’ve got to get this degree, I’ve got to get that grade.” This doesn’t foster a broader humanist outlook. Does that make sense? 

Jacobsen: There’s almost a difference in the motivation for education. One motivation is the Enlightenment’s pursuit of knowledge through reason, discourse, and evidence. The other motivation incorporates some of those principles, but to a weaker degree, and is more focused on dismantling what is perceived as systems of oppression.

There’s a distinct difference in orientation between these two approaches. The latter has some humanistic elements but not fully Enlightenment elements. That distinction should be carefully addressed because Enlightenment and humanism, particularly in ethics, are based on evidence-based reasoning and universalism. Everyone should get a fair chance. When you start developing “oppressor versus oppressed systems,” it can have merit in specific contexts. But when applied generally, you begin to see what you were calling re-racialization or the re-essentialization of individuals and groups, where the ethic becomes based on particularism tied to group identity rather than treating individuals as persons.

It inverts the founding principles of structures like the UN and humanistic philosophy, where the emphasis should be on the individual as part of the universal application of principles rather than principles based on group identity. It’s not just an interesting dichotomy; it reflects a subtle yet significant shift that’s difficult to identify.

Cuthbert: Yes, you’re right. These shifts are quite subterranean. There’s a lot of noise and drama on the surface, but the deeper shifts need to be unearthed and articulated better than they are at present. In Britain, the balance between universal principles and their concrete manifestation is shifting significantly, especially with how the Equality Act is applied.

The Equality Act was originally meant to consolidate several specific anti-discrimination acts that had been in place in Britain since the 1960s. Those earlier acts were quite limited and specific to particular areas of work and practices. However, under the Equality Act, the focus has shifted toward a more general policy and, even further, toward a broader cultural change. Using the law to directly change culture and society too often becomes profoundly anti-democratic.

This also runs against longstanding British legal traditions and the relationship between the individual and the state, enshrined since the 17th century. Ideologically, the justification for these changes is often framed through a discourse of vulnerability and trauma. This ties into issues around race and gender, such as the arguments about the need to make environments welcoming for minority groups, otherwise claiming they won’t be able to engage effectively.

But what happens is that this further seals us off, you know, in search of social relationships; it shifts the legal relationships underneath. As you say, it’s throwing any sense of universalism out the window. This was made explicit recently when a student I know was feeling pressure to interpret a particular writer in a specific way that she disagreed with, so she pursued her interpretation.

She told the lecturer “I’m focusing on the universal principles in this writer. I don’t believe universal principles are just a male white privilege,” as suggested. The lecturer denied that they had ever said universal principles were only for white men but added, “All I’m saying is that there are many universalisms.” That’s what’s worrying—a senior lecturer at Cambridge believes there are “many universalisms.”

Jacobsen: It’s in the name. I’ve heard from a Métis colleague in Canada who encounters disagreements about these ideas of “ways of knowing.” It’s not about using different modernized science tools to probe nature more accurately while still adhering to empirical philosophy and naturalism. Instead, it’s the notion that, for instance, there’s a “white male way of knowing things.” This creates a confused epistemology because nature has a unicity—a coherent totality. If you take nature as a whole, you should be able to apply a straightforward, fundamental epistemology to understand it accurately using various tools. However, the method of knowing should remain consistent. Otherwise, nature would present as more confused and incoherent than it does.

Cuthbert: But this also applies to non-science subjects differently. You say nature has a unicity, and I argue that humans do as well. As an Enlightenment supporter, unity comes from our reason or will, in a Kantian sense. That’s how you find unity in diversity or plurality in unity. As we strive to become more human, we do so in historically and culturally specific ways but with shared commonalities. The particular and the universal are not separate—they are two ends of the same pole in humanity.

So, when it comes to choosing books for literature courses, I found it shocking and painful when a writer like Kazuo Ishiguro, a Nobel Laureate whose books are beautiful, was removed from the curriculum. One of his works was perfect for teaching a certain age group in schools, but an unknown writer replaced it, selected purely because of her sex and race. It could be a good book, but it hasn’t stood the test of time—it was written only in the last two or three years.

Moreover, this change was made by the national exam board, the key power holders in the exam system for decades, who casually decided to say, “It’s for our diversity quota.” To me, that’s intellectual vandalism. Even more concerning is the cavalier disregard or the activist commitment to these changes among the elites. Instead of intervening, they call the shots or at least let this happen and look at their shoelaces while it unfolds. More people are speaking up. More individuals and groups are forming, which is a positive sign and gives us hope.

Jacobsen: Two things that come up. I’ve received feedback where people express disagreement in an invective tone toward me or the ideas presented. Primarily, the complaints are that they don’t want me to interview a particular person or they’re upset that I have. As you know, I interviewed many people.

In these interviews, I’ve spoken with individuals from across the spectrum. For instance, I interviewed one of the founders of intelligent design. At the same time, I interviewed one of the main figures on the opposing side. I stand by evolution and natural selection, but I still wanted to interview that person because it would be interesting. More recently, when I’ve encountered such complaints, I respond by thanking people for their opinions and offering them a chance to express their concerns in an interview or even to submit an article to the same publication. I have access. Typically, they either don’t respond or decline.

I see a need for commitment to engage with their disagreement or dissatisfaction, even though I offer an open platform. Sure, personal attacks sting a little, but you move on. I’m noticing that, in many cases, people are arriving at the right conclusions—such as advocating human universalism—but using faulty methodologies. It’s ideological. They may agree with my biases in conclusion, but they lack reliance on empirical methods, rational inquiry, and critical thinking. It’s subtle, but as you said, these things are subterranean but important to bring to the surface.

Cuthbert: Yes, they might intuitively sense the weakness of their argument, which is why they create an epistemological protective barrier around themselves and their ideas. I should mention that I was recently disinvited or “cancelled” from a teachers’ conference. It was quite amusing because the organizer had contacted me and liked my academic work on aesthetics and literature. But two or three days before the event—on a Wednesday evening, with the conference scheduled for that Saturday—I received an email from a friend acting as the intermediary. He apologized and said the organizer had contacted him, stating they needed to disinvite me because five people had emailed him in tears about my participation on the panel.

Jacobsen: Five people at a conference of 500?

Cuthbert: Exactly! There would be 500 people at this conference with many sessions; these five people didn’t have to attend my session. But my mere presence was enough to upset them. They didn’t know my academic work but objected  because of my campaigning with Don’t Divide Us. They objected to the fact that we support a universalist approach to race and anti-racism rather than a critical race theory approach.

At first, my reaction was to think, “Well, f*** them, I don’t care.” But after reflecting on it and talking to friends, I realized how dreadful this situation was. This wasn’t just about me—it was about a worldview shared by most people. Still, five individuals claiming trauma were wielding this as a weapon. And the organizer, who completely lacked a spine, caved into them.

We kept things amicable, however. With the help of the Free Speech Union, we organized a separate session, and some of the original speakers agreed to participate. We held our event, and the original conference organizers said they would share the recording with their email list.

So I was quite pleased with how we handled that situation because, you know, we didn’t throw a tantrum or get angry. However, during the conversations with the organizer, I kept pointing out that he had a choice. He didn’t have to listen to those five people. He could have told them, “I know you’re genuinely upset,” because he insisted they were truly upset and not making it up. And I thought, “Do they want to be teachers?” It’s a bit concerning if they’re upset by me—how will they handle a classroom full of 30 teenagers?

But we managed to have a conversation and maintain that slight connection. Honestly, he felt quite embarrassed. He’s a nice guy but didn’t dare to do the right thing.

Jacobsen: Now, I’m not a practicing psychologist or therapist, but what you’re describing seems similar to something called DARVO. Have you heard of it?

Cuthbert: No, what’s DARVO?

Jacobsen: It stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. You must assess each situation individually to determine if bad faith is involved. However, if you have a lecture with 500 people attending and five disagree, they could attend and voice their concerns during the Q&A or not attend. Yet, in these cases, which seem to be happening more and more across the political spectrum—but perhaps a bit more often to conservative voices—the tactic is to claim victimhood over the mere presence of a speaker. Then, they demand that the person be disinvited or cancelled.

It’s not like these people are fleeing their homes in Ukraine or other war-torn areas. Still, it seems like a denial of reality. They attack the presenter and then reverse the roles of victim and offender. The result is that these individuals, acting as aggressors, pretend to be victims.

By doing that, they deny someone’s professional progress. Teachers and speakers often need to be paid better; a lot of their extra income comes from lectures and presentations. So, they’re harming someone’s livelihood. Some people even lose tenure positions over things like this.

Cuthbert: In my case, it wasn’t so much about money, but if I had not responded, it would have been recorded, and I might not have been invited to future events. I get invited to do outreach lectures at colleges occasionally, often for free, because I wouldn’t say I like taking money for educational work. But still, my name could have ended up on a list of “cancelled” educators, and more and more colleges are checking databases to see if people have been involved in controversial topics before inviting them.

My main objection, Scott, was that I didn’t want to let them get away without some pushback. What they were objecting to was a Martin Luther King-style view of anti-racism.

And that’s a respectable and legitimate viewpoint, and it’s one that most people hold. That’s why Don’t Divide Us exists—to stop that perspective from being deauthorized or stigmatized publicly.

Jacobsen: Yes, so, other than that, you’ve earned your PhD, and you’ve published an article through Conatus News. You’ve encountered a couple of controversies similar to some others involved with Conatus. But generally, people have gone off in different directions—some into retirement, others into lecturing, and many have worked internationally. I’m reaching out to people and seeing where they’ve landed.

One woman I know was president of what was then the International Humanist and Ethical Youth Organization (now Young Humanists International), and she was involved with the International Humanist and Ethical Union (now Humanists International). She was deeply engaged in other activities, too. Now she’s a mom of two and helps her husband run a business, which has already turned around £1 million. That’s quite impressive.

Wow, that’s pretty good! I’m happy for them, and I’m happy for you—getting your PhD. People seem to be doing well. As someone still early in my career, I find it fascinating to see where people go. This group was where people published to varying degrees—from one article to many more—and now they’ve gone in various directions.

But no clear patterns. That’s life.

Cuthbert: True, that’s humanity for you. Good luck with everything you want to do. Thanks! Goodbye for now.

Jacobsen: Take care. Bye-bye.

Footnotes

None

Citations

American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert . November 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/conatus-news-1

American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, November 22). Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert ’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert ’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert ’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/conatus-news-1.

Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert .” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (November 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/conatus-news-1.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert ’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/conatus-news-1.

Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert ’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/conatus-news-1.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert .” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/conatus-news-1.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert  [Internet]. 2024 Nov; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/conatus-news-1.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.